- (1.) TO dispose of the controversy arising in this appeal, a few facts may be set out which are as under: In pursuance to the sanction granted by the Director of Higher Education, U.P. Allahabad by letter dated 27.7.1989 with effect from 1.8.1989 for two posts - one of Assistant Accountant and the other of Stenographer, for Hindu Kanya Mahavidyalaya, Sitapur, an advertisement was published in May, 1990 for selection on the said posts. On 10.1.1991, the respondent No. 3, i.e. the Committee of Management issued letter fixing final date of interview, scheduled to be held on 29.1.1991, for the Selection Committee to be constituted for making selection on the posts in question, to the District Inspector of Schools and also to the District Employment Officer. However, it was reported from the office of the District Employment Officer, Sitapur that the post of District Employment Officer is lying vacant since June, 1990 and an officer from Lucknow used to come for disbursement of salary. On 29.1.1991, the Selection Committee consisting of Authorised Controller, Principal and the District Inspector of Schools met in absence of the District Employment Officer and held selection. In pursuance to the said selection, the respondent No. 3 sent a letter to the Regional Higher Education Officer, Lucknow for approval of appointment of the appellant on the post of Assistant Accountant and one Shri Rudra Pal Singh for the post of Stenographer. However, the latter declined to approve the selection on three counts vide decision taken on 7.3.1991. Consequently, the respondent No. 3 submitted a detailed reply dated 13.5.1991 and tried to remove the objections raised by the Regional Higher Education Officer and justified the selection proceedings. Being not satisfied on some count, the Regional Higher Education Officer has passed the order dated 5.7.1991, impugned in the writ petition, whereby he had disapproved the selection of the appellant on the ground that the selection Committee was not constituted in accordance with para 21.03(6)(b) of the First Statutes of Kanpur University as the District Employment Officer or an officer nominated, by him, had not participated in the selection process. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner had preferred a writ petition, bearing writ petition No. 6803(S/S) of 1991.
(2.) ON 13.1.1992, learned Single Judge has admitted the petition treating the averments made in para 5 thereof as uncontroverted on the ground of counter affidavit having not been filed by the State. Thereafter, by order dated 2.11.1992, this Court had passed an interim order restraining the respondents to hold fresh selection to the post for which the selection had already been held and now, the writ petition has been finally disposed of by the order under appeal directing the respondents to constitute a selection Committee de novo to consider the candidature of the writ petitioners for appointment after getting the names of other candidates from the employment exchange. Learned Single Judge accepted the argument, advanced on behalf of the respondents on the ground that the Selection Committee was not legally constituted, in as much as the District Employment Officer was not present in the selection when the Selection Committee considered the candidates. The short issue, therefore, is whether the selection done by a Committee where one member was absent, can be said to be nonest and illegal, thereby, vitiating the entire selection process. For that purpose, we would like to refer relevant statute of the university, being statute 21.03(6)(b) which reads as under: 21.03(6)(b) : the Selection Committee for the appointment to the remaining posts referred to in Clause (1) or Clause (3) either by direct recruitment or by promotion shall consist of - (i) the Head of the Management or a member of the management nominated by him who shall be the Chairman; (ii) the Principal of the College; (iii) the District Inspector of Schools; (iv) the District Employment Officer or an Officer authorised by him in this behalf.
(3.) FROM the above statute, therefore, it becomes clear that the Selection Committee consists of four persons as set out therein. Admittedly, on the date of the selection, there is no dispute that the District Employment Officer was not present nor an officer authorised by him was there. It has also come on record that at the relevant time, the post of District Employment Officer was vacant. In other words, the District Employment Officer could not have participated in the proceedings nor could he nominate any other officer to take part in the proceedings. In this background, we proceed now to consider the rival contentions.;